TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 20/09/2023, without considering the Submissions made by the assessee which is unjustified and bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is rejected by the CPC, which is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by dismissing the appeal of the assessee in present facts of the case that subject matter cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record which is incorrect and bad-in-law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Learned AR submitted that additional grounds so filed are admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The prayer for admission of additional grounds noted above, which are not in memorandum of appeal, are being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional grounds are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) of section 154 of the Act. 7.1. In the present case, there is no mistake that is apparent from records. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act had raised a demand on the basis of returned figures. Accepting fresh claims u/s 154 of the Act is not permissible. 8. Considering the facts of the case and position of law, grounds of appeal are decided against the appellant. 7. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Consolidating all their grounds, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A)/CPC erred in not rectifying the mistake which is covered u/s 154 of the Act. The learned AR further submitted that the deductions/exemptions otherwise allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: "It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not,something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly. 12. The assessee has relied upon the following decisions in support of the fact that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 and upheld by the learned CIT (A) are not in accordance with law: i) Dinumatiben Damjibhai Shilu vs. Income Tax Officer vide ITA No.195/RJT/2022 dated 28.022022 wherein it clearly shows that in that case there is a mismatch between the income reflected on account of salary and return filed u/s 89(1) of the I. T. Act and in those facts, the Tribunal has held that section 154 should be invoked by the Assessing Officer. ii) Similar are the facts in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. NSL Renewable Power (P) Ltd in I....